In April, President Obama released Bush Administration legal memoranda from around 2002 which approved "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques." The nation's left-leaning mainstream media, and commentators the world over, are attacking these so-called "Torture Memos" from the Bush Administration. Activist groups, including many funded by George Soros, are calling for criminal prosecutions of Bush Administration officials for having approved "torture."
However, calls for investigations lost momentum on Capitol Hill. Republicans aggressively documented how Democrat Congressional leaders were briefed on the interrogation techniques over the years. Democrats had approved or at least raised no objection. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was reduced to quibbling over whether she had been briefed only about waterboarding as an approved technique or about when the military actually start using it. Democrats waved off questions about their own involvement in approving the techniques by protesting that the briefings are still classified.
Accusations that the Geneva Convention was violated might allow prosecutions of Bush Administration officials and U.S. soldiers in the International Criminal Court in the Hague with accusations of war crimes. Already, a Spanish court agreed to consider a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; former undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith; former Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff David Addington; Pentagon lawyer William Haynes and Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee.
As reported in the POLITICO, Senate Leader Harry Reid offered one of the most curious quotes in Congressional history: “I think it would very unwise from my perspective to start having commissions, boards, tribunals until we find out what the facts are." Normally, finding out what the facts are is the reason for holding commissions, boards, and tribunals. Thus, Sen. Reid apparently suggested that the Democrat-controlled Senate would hold commissions, boards, and tribunals with pre-determined outcomes, after deciding behind closed doors in advance what facts those bodies would be organized to "find."
Initially it must be said that no actual "torture memos" exist. The released Bush Administration memos analyze what interrogation techniques are NOT torture. The memos identify techniques that are lawful and approved for US interrogation of captured terrorists and detained combatants. So technically the memos are "not torture memos."
The actual content of the "not torture" memos has been routinely ignored in favor of sensationalized myths and misconceptions. In fact, the disparity is significant, with approved interrogation techniques including putting a harmless caterpillar in a known terrorist's prison cell, reading Harry Potter books to a terrorist, and playing Celine Dion' records to a terrorist.
This causes wonder if someone might one day call in a "caterpillar scare" at the U.S. Capitol, warning that somewhere in the Congress a caterpillar is loose. Would there be an evacuation, or would everyone admit that caterpillars are really not all that scary? Might a protestor someday disrupt a Congressional hearing by singing Dion's "Near, Far, Wherever you are..." from Titanic?
Even the practice of "walling" turned out to involve a fake, harmless, soft "nerf" wall. The technique was to make a terrorist believe he was going to be slammed against a wall, but it was actually a soft, flexible fake. All the techniques required medical supervision to ensure safety.
However, one of the most important parts of this issue is whether the Bush-approved interrogation techniques violated the Geneva Convention. This is especially troubling, because left-leaning, generally anti-American bureaucrats in Europe, the United Nations, and around the world have a great deal of influence in redefining the meaning of the Geneva Convention and related protocols. There is no precise meaning of "international law" because there is no ultimate authority like America's Supreme Court. Therefore, international bureaucrats have enormous opportunities to bend and shape such concepts to their liking, and against America's interests.
As Cliff May, President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, explains, U.S. detainees are "not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention." In fact, Cliff May was quoting from Eric Holder, now Obama's Attorney General. Holder said those words on CNN in January 2002. Attorney General Holder explained in that 2002 interview that if Al Qaeda hijacker Mohamed Atta had "survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."
Article 4 of the Geneva Convention defines "prisoners of war" as either members of the armed forces of a nation that has signed the Geneva Convention (which does not apply) or --
"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
However, the terrorists and unlawful combatants detained by the United States military do not fall within this definition. They do not belong to a "Party" (a signatory to the Geneva Convention). In fact, they are attempting to overthrow the elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The terrorists do not operate under the command of a responsible officer, but independently as decentralized cells. They do not have a distinctive sign -- that is a uniform or insignia -- recognizable at a distance. They do not carry arms openly, but conceal themselves as civilians hiding among the civilian population. And they do not conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
These conditions are extremely important because they are intended, in part, to protect civilians. Fighters who are disguised as civilians -- not wearing uniforms or "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" -- endanger the civilian population. The Geneva Convention was designed to punish those who act in this way by depriving them of its protections. A recent example was the battle in Gaza, in which Hamas used hospitals as military command posts and Hamas leaders dressed up as doctors.
Therefore, it is imperative that unlawful combatants be deprived of the rights of the Geneva Convention. There must be consequnces for fighters who endanger civilian populations. There must be a clear difference between how fighters are treated when they obey "the laws and customs of war" and when they do not. Any failure to punish those who hide among and behind civilians is as dangerous as failing to enforce the Convention. It is vitally important that combatants who violate its terms and endanger civilians must feel the consequences of losing their rights under the Convention.
To extend the Geneva Convention's protections to the terrorists places civilians in grave danger, by encouraging combatants to hide among them and behind them. Thus, ironically, attempts to extend the Geneva Convention to irregular combatants like the Taliban or terrorists threatens the Geneva Convention itself. Allowing irregular combatants to violate the laws of war and yet suffer no consequences, undercuts the Convention in general. The proposed expansion of the General Convention to cover the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists who do not abide by the Convention's requirements, encourages non-compliance with the Convention and international law.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Friday, April 24, 2009
Torturing The Word "Torture"
Last week, President Obama released Bush Administration legal opinions from 2002 which had analyzed the legality of "aggressive interrogation techniques." Most of these techniques were revealed before, yet the memos were trumpeted as an expose, amidst calls for criminal prosecutions of Bush, Cheney, and past officials.
There are four things we can say for sure: (1) The United States should not engage in torture. (2) Terrorists have no rights under the Geneva Convention, which covers only soldiers fighting in uniform (3) Nothing that the Bush Administration did qualifies as "torture." And (4) there is no limit to the lies and distortions which liberals and America haters will engage in to bash the United States.
Trouble is, the definition of "torture" has changed. In fact, American politics is facing a crisis of confusion by re-definition of key words. Many actions are rough, unpleasant, nasty, or humiliating yet still not "torture." Using a new, altered definition, the national news media, liberals, Democrats in Congress, and international organizations have trumpeted charges that the USA engaged in "torture. Then, liberal officials in government and those pandering to the news media have joined in the chorus.
So a giant "echo chamber" has been created in which several million words have been written world-wide merely assuming that the USA used torture. Did we? Or is this just "The Big Lie?"
The only new information Obama "exposed" was about plans to put a caterpillar in a small cell with terrorist Abu Zubaydah who has a fear of insects. (The tough guy has killed or arranged the murder of hundreds of human beings.) Then we also learned how many times Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were waterboarded, around 200 times each. We also learned details about the medical supervision of interrogations mandated by the Bush Justice Department to ensure that subjects remained safe at all times.
Most Americans, however, naturally believe that if interrogation does not involve any physical injury, it does not qualify as torture. Simply knowing that there is a caterpillar in the room is not what most people call 'torture.' (In fact some therapists might recommend that as a cure for getting over Zubaydah's fear of bugs.) Nasty? Perhaps. But it simply does not meet the definition of "torture." One may oppose such techniques without calling them torture.
Most Americans believe that if an activity is regularly practiced by cheerleaders or part of the annual San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, it should not properly be termed torture. So creating human pyramids, wearing underwear on heads, having a leash harmlessly around one's necks, and being half-naked are events we can see both at Abu Ghraib prison and also in the streets of San Francisco during the annual parade celebrating homosexuality.
Most Americans feel that living conditions that U.S. soldiers must regularly endure should not be called torture. One technique involved keeping prison cells cold. Yet if our U.S. troops in the field have to endure cold, bad food, cramped conditions, and hard ground as a bed, or stay awake for days in a battle, well then, doggone it, terrorists can share the same conditions. Anything that our U.S. military has to put up with is good enough for the terrorists who were trying to kill our troops and who have murdered hundreds or thousands of people.
One of the oddest revelations -- in terms of liberal reaction -- was the Associated Press report that a female interrogator read "Harry Potter" books to a terrorist for hours. When a person reads books to a bed-ridden elderly patient, this is considered an act of kindness. But in "Liberal Land," reading the wildly-popular "Harry Potter" books to an inmate at Guantanamo Bay is now "torture."
Similarly, US interrogators "tortured" prisoners by playing Celine Dion records ad nauseum. When the film "Titanic" was released, those who heard the theme song by Dion played a hundred times a day for months, may well be tempted to call this torture. But we should leave such analysis to the film critics.
Some techniques which liberals claim was torture included yelling at the terrorist, using nasty words, lying to the terrorist about handing him over to the Mossad or the Saudis, leading a terrorist to believe that he might suffer bodily injury or be killed, or forcing a Muslim man to be in the same room with a woman.
However unpleasant an act may be, perhaps if it is advertised on "Craigs List" as as a paid erotic service, maybe "torture" is not the right word for it. Disgusting, yes. Inappropriate... absolutely. But "torture?" Not quite. At Abu Ghraib, being in the same room with a woman, being half-naked, wearing kinky outfits, or even being spanked . possibly aren't "torture" if people pay real money for these same acts by kinky escorts through ads in the "City Paper."
One of the most curious techniques used, reading between the lines, was to take photographs of terrorists half-naked with a female soldier. Interrogators would then threaten to send the photographs to the terrorists' Islamic hometown. This was apparently done to blackmail terrorists into talking. This technique involves no actual harm whatsoever, especially if the threat is never carried out. On the other hand, blackmail certainly does seem under-handed and troubling. This might be unethical, but torture it is not.
Nearly all the aggressive interrogation techniques were "old news," such as sleep deprivation. Prisoners were sometimes deprived of solid food. This brings to mind those TV ads for "Slim Fast" diet drinks. This author has fasted for a week with no food at all. Several pastors I know have fasted for 40 days without any food at all. This can be pure misery. Surely it would be uncomfortable, especially for a plump man like Khalikh Sheikh Mohammed who probably loves his food. But can we call it "torture" when we have diet companies selling liquid diets on television?
Interrogators were authorized to keep a prisoner awake for no more than 180 hours (8 days). During this author's fraternity initiation "hell week" I stayed awake for just under one week. And that included going to classes in college, and functioning as a student despite having no sleep. Terrorist detainees just sat in their cells, kept awake. Calling what fraternity pledges do voluntarily torture is a bit of a stretch.
Some inmates were kept naked. That is embarrassing, especially for a Muslim if women are around. But let's put things in perspective. Nudist colonies charge money for allowing a lifestyle of nakedness. It might not be everyone's taste. But if people pay money to walk around naked all day, can we really classify that as torture? Humiliating, yes. But "torture" is a different word.
As described by the USA TODAY from a Justice Department release, some of the other methods approved for "aggressive interrogation" by the Bush Administration did also include some rougher treatment. But even these are being misrepresented.
Perhaps the most disturbing technique was the practice of "walling" -- until we understand what it is. USA Today describes walling as: "A fake, flexible wall is built, and the suspect is pulled forward and 'then quickly and firmly' pushed against the wall. 'The idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is.'"
But pay careful attention: An inmate is thrown into a FAKE wall, specially constructed for the purpose. This was a FLEXIBLE -- soft -- wall, designed to be HARMLESS. The idea is to make the terrorist believe he is going to be hurt... but in fact he is not hurt at all. This is a "Nerf wall!"
Another approved method that might trouble Americans includes stress positions: This included "kneeling on the floor while leaning back at a 45-degree angle" and "sitting on the floor with legs extended out in front of him with his arms raised above his head." This is one method that seems questionable and over the line, and might bother many people. Yet no actual injury is involved.
There were a few approved methods more of what we expect in rough interrogation: Attention grasp: "Grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the shirt collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion." Facial grasp: "Used to hold the head immobile. One open palm is placed on either side of the individual's face." Insult slap: "The purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise and/or humiliation."
Similarly, there is cramped confinement: The suspect is placed in a confined space that "is usually dark." Some spaces allow a subject only to sit down. Such confinement "lasts for no more than two hours."
Then there is Wall standing: Subjects are forced to lean with only their fingers for support against a wall 4 to 5 feet away from their bodies in a tactic "used to induce muscle fatigue."
And finally, of course, there is the now famous waterboarding: As described by the Justice Department release: "The subject is placed on a board with a cloth covering his nose and mouth. The cloth is saturated with water to simulate drowning. It creates "the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic.' " The reason that the technique works is that terrorists do not know if the interrogator will go too far.
Among the released memos is one from then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee emphasizing that waterboarding "will be stopped if deemed medically necessary to prevent severe mental or physical harm." Another memo makes clear that supervising physicians were empowered to stop interrogations "if in their professional judgment the detainee may suffer severe physical or mental pain or suffering.
Despite the world-wide hysteria about waterboarding, the reality is a bit of a let-down. It should be well-known by now that US troops endure waterboarding as part of their training. The internet news outlet "Bleepin' Truth" held a live demonstration of waterboarding in Tampa, Florida. It was broadcast by Bay News 9 television news.
This demonstration was different from others in that an actual, trained military interrogator reproduced the technique accurately.
There is no question that the experience is very unpleasant. That is the whole point. But we see videos of hundreds of people who walk away afterwards, and talk normally to camera. YouTube contains dozens of demonstrations.
To put this into context, we might do well to visit a Florida swimming pool and talk to rough-housing boys who regularly push each other under the water. If being submerged under water -- and held there -- with the sensation that one is about to drown is "waterboarding" then it is happening a hundred times a week somewhere in Florida's swimming pools by rough-housing boys.
This author was diving in the Bahamas, 40 feet below the water, with no air, when our "Aquanut" air pump suddenly ran out of gas. It took several seconds to realize why it was suddenly so quiet, and then take a breath and find no air coming in. Struggling for the surface, my lungs were bursting, like a thousand pins all through my lungs. This was certainly unpleasant, but you could not call it torture. I was back down in the water again within ten minutes.
In order to have meaningful decisions on national policies, we must have clear and unchanging definitions of key concepts. We must not allow this liberal scam of changing the meaning of words in order to hijack national policy. The definition of words can control the entire direction of a nation.
There are four things we can say for sure: (1) The United States should not engage in torture. (2) Terrorists have no rights under the Geneva Convention, which covers only soldiers fighting in uniform (3) Nothing that the Bush Administration did qualifies as "torture." And (4) there is no limit to the lies and distortions which liberals and America haters will engage in to bash the United States.
Trouble is, the definition of "torture" has changed. In fact, American politics is facing a crisis of confusion by re-definition of key words. Many actions are rough, unpleasant, nasty, or humiliating yet still not "torture." Using a new, altered definition, the national news media, liberals, Democrats in Congress, and international organizations have trumpeted charges that the USA engaged in "torture. Then, liberal officials in government and those pandering to the news media have joined in the chorus.
So a giant "echo chamber" has been created in which several million words have been written world-wide merely assuming that the USA used torture. Did we? Or is this just "The Big Lie?"
The only new information Obama "exposed" was about plans to put a caterpillar in a small cell with terrorist Abu Zubaydah who has a fear of insects. (The tough guy has killed or arranged the murder of hundreds of human beings.) Then we also learned how many times Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were waterboarded, around 200 times each. We also learned details about the medical supervision of interrogations mandated by the Bush Justice Department to ensure that subjects remained safe at all times.
Most Americans, however, naturally believe that if interrogation does not involve any physical injury, it does not qualify as torture. Simply knowing that there is a caterpillar in the room is not what most people call 'torture.' (In fact some therapists might recommend that as a cure for getting over Zubaydah's fear of bugs.) Nasty? Perhaps. But it simply does not meet the definition of "torture." One may oppose such techniques without calling them torture.
Most Americans believe that if an activity is regularly practiced by cheerleaders or part of the annual San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, it should not properly be termed torture. So creating human pyramids, wearing underwear on heads, having a leash harmlessly around one's necks, and being half-naked are events we can see both at Abu Ghraib prison and also in the streets of San Francisco during the annual parade celebrating homosexuality.
Most Americans feel that living conditions that U.S. soldiers must regularly endure should not be called torture. One technique involved keeping prison cells cold. Yet if our U.S. troops in the field have to endure cold, bad food, cramped conditions, and hard ground as a bed, or stay awake for days in a battle, well then, doggone it, terrorists can share the same conditions. Anything that our U.S. military has to put up with is good enough for the terrorists who were trying to kill our troops and who have murdered hundreds or thousands of people.
One of the oddest revelations -- in terms of liberal reaction -- was the Associated Press report that a female interrogator read "Harry Potter" books to a terrorist for hours. When a person reads books to a bed-ridden elderly patient, this is considered an act of kindness. But in "Liberal Land," reading the wildly-popular "Harry Potter" books to an inmate at Guantanamo Bay is now "torture."
Similarly, US interrogators "tortured" prisoners by playing Celine Dion records ad nauseum. When the film "Titanic" was released, those who heard the theme song by Dion played a hundred times a day for months, may well be tempted to call this torture. But we should leave such analysis to the film critics.
Some techniques which liberals claim was torture included yelling at the terrorist, using nasty words, lying to the terrorist about handing him over to the Mossad or the Saudis, leading a terrorist to believe that he might suffer bodily injury or be killed, or forcing a Muslim man to be in the same room with a woman.
However unpleasant an act may be, perhaps if it is advertised on "Craigs List" as as a paid erotic service, maybe "torture" is not the right word for it. Disgusting, yes. Inappropriate... absolutely. But "torture?" Not quite. At Abu Ghraib, being in the same room with a woman, being half-naked, wearing kinky outfits, or even being spanked . possibly aren't "torture" if people pay real money for these same acts by kinky escorts through ads in the "City Paper."
One of the most curious techniques used, reading between the lines, was to take photographs of terrorists half-naked with a female soldier. Interrogators would then threaten to send the photographs to the terrorists' Islamic hometown. This was apparently done to blackmail terrorists into talking. This technique involves no actual harm whatsoever, especially if the threat is never carried out. On the other hand, blackmail certainly does seem under-handed and troubling. This might be unethical, but torture it is not.
Nearly all the aggressive interrogation techniques were "old news," such as sleep deprivation. Prisoners were sometimes deprived of solid food. This brings to mind those TV ads for "Slim Fast" diet drinks. This author has fasted for a week with no food at all. Several pastors I know have fasted for 40 days without any food at all. This can be pure misery. Surely it would be uncomfortable, especially for a plump man like Khalikh Sheikh Mohammed who probably loves his food. But can we call it "torture" when we have diet companies selling liquid diets on television?
Interrogators were authorized to keep a prisoner awake for no more than 180 hours (8 days). During this author's fraternity initiation "hell week" I stayed awake for just under one week. And that included going to classes in college, and functioning as a student despite having no sleep. Terrorist detainees just sat in their cells, kept awake. Calling what fraternity pledges do voluntarily torture is a bit of a stretch.
Some inmates were kept naked. That is embarrassing, especially for a Muslim if women are around. But let's put things in perspective. Nudist colonies charge money for allowing a lifestyle of nakedness. It might not be everyone's taste. But if people pay money to walk around naked all day, can we really classify that as torture? Humiliating, yes. But "torture" is a different word.
As described by the USA TODAY from a Justice Department release, some of the other methods approved for "aggressive interrogation" by the Bush Administration did also include some rougher treatment. But even these are being misrepresented.
Perhaps the most disturbing technique was the practice of "walling" -- until we understand what it is. USA Today describes walling as: "A fake, flexible wall is built, and the suspect is pulled forward and 'then quickly and firmly' pushed against the wall. 'The idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is.'"
But pay careful attention: An inmate is thrown into a FAKE wall, specially constructed for the purpose. This was a FLEXIBLE -- soft -- wall, designed to be HARMLESS. The idea is to make the terrorist believe he is going to be hurt... but in fact he is not hurt at all. This is a "Nerf wall!"
Another approved method that might trouble Americans includes stress positions: This included "kneeling on the floor while leaning back at a 45-degree angle" and "sitting on the floor with legs extended out in front of him with his arms raised above his head." This is one method that seems questionable and over the line, and might bother many people. Yet no actual injury is involved.
There were a few approved methods more of what we expect in rough interrogation: Attention grasp: "Grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on each side of the shirt collar opening, in a controlled and quick motion." Facial grasp: "Used to hold the head immobile. One open palm is placed on either side of the individual's face." Insult slap: "The purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise and/or humiliation."
Similarly, there is cramped confinement: The suspect is placed in a confined space that "is usually dark." Some spaces allow a subject only to sit down. Such confinement "lasts for no more than two hours."
Then there is Wall standing: Subjects are forced to lean with only their fingers for support against a wall 4 to 5 feet away from their bodies in a tactic "used to induce muscle fatigue."
And finally, of course, there is the now famous waterboarding: As described by the Justice Department release: "The subject is placed on a board with a cloth covering his nose and mouth. The cloth is saturated with water to simulate drowning. It creates "the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic.' " The reason that the technique works is that terrorists do not know if the interrogator will go too far.
Among the released memos is one from then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee emphasizing that waterboarding "will be stopped if deemed medically necessary to prevent severe mental or physical harm." Another memo makes clear that supervising physicians were empowered to stop interrogations "if in their professional judgment the detainee may suffer severe physical or mental pain or suffering.
Despite the world-wide hysteria about waterboarding, the reality is a bit of a let-down. It should be well-known by now that US troops endure waterboarding as part of their training. The internet news outlet "Bleepin' Truth" held a live demonstration of waterboarding in Tampa, Florida. It was broadcast by Bay News 9 television news.
This demonstration was different from others in that an actual, trained military interrogator reproduced the technique accurately.
There is no question that the experience is very unpleasant. That is the whole point. But we see videos of hundreds of people who walk away afterwards, and talk normally to camera. YouTube contains dozens of demonstrations.
To put this into context, we might do well to visit a Florida swimming pool and talk to rough-housing boys who regularly push each other under the water. If being submerged under water -- and held there -- with the sensation that one is about to drown is "waterboarding" then it is happening a hundred times a week somewhere in Florida's swimming pools by rough-housing boys.
This author was diving in the Bahamas, 40 feet below the water, with no air, when our "Aquanut" air pump suddenly ran out of gas. It took several seconds to realize why it was suddenly so quiet, and then take a breath and find no air coming in. Struggling for the surface, my lungs were bursting, like a thousand pins all through my lungs. This was certainly unpleasant, but you could not call it torture. I was back down in the water again within ten minutes.
In order to have meaningful decisions on national policies, we must have clear and unchanging definitions of key concepts. We must not allow this liberal scam of changing the meaning of words in order to hijack national policy. The definition of words can control the entire direction of a nation.
Monday, April 20, 2009
MSNBC Olbermann Attacks Tea Parties
Keith Olbermann, hosting his “Countdown” show on MSNBC on April 14, smeared the nation-wide movement Tea Parties by comparing it with a sexual act usually associated with homosexual culture. MSNBC generally and Olbermann in particular have been criticized for a continuing descent into becoming a biased propaganda arm for the radical far left.
Readers should be warned that it is impossible to report Keith Olbermann’s grossly offensive reporting without discussing his offensive content. On April 15, Rush Limbaugh broadcast a similar discussion of the same smear made on-air by CNN’S Anderson Coooper without giving such a warning (which he normally gives), and Rush read from an urban dictionary to make his point.
Invoking the historical example of the “Boston Tea Party” which helped spark the American Revolution, a tsunami of spontaneous grassroots protest has swept across the nation. Americans of many different political views are protesting against government’s over-spending, bailouts, and refusal to listen to the people on such issues as illegal immigration.
The first modern “Boston Tea Party” was a spontaneous event in Seattle, Washington, on February 16, 2009. Then on February 19, financial reporter Rick Santelli gave his famous “rant heard round the world” on CNBC in which Santelli suggested holding a Chicago Tea Party in July and throwing tea into Lake Michigan. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA] To some extent, the enormous public opposition to the massive bank and corporate bailouts starting last Fall has evolved into the tea party movement.
Public sentiment against both George Bush’s and Barack Obama’s bailouts of mind-numbing size, using borrowed money, have swamped the Congressional switchboard at several points since last Fall. One of the most poignant scenes of the tea parties is a very young girl holding up a sign “Sorry, Daddy, I don’t have a trillion dollars to loan you.”
The idea of holding tea parties on tax day, April 15, emerged as too obvious to ignore. Following this example, hundreds of conservative organizations and tens of thousands of individuals seized on this very obvious opportunity to protest. With the internet and talk radio making the organization inexpensive and easy, hundreds of rallies were scheduled. Some of the tea parties are so spontaneous that conflicting rallies have been scheduled at the same time without coordination. Tea parties in Fairfax, Virginia, were scheduled for both the Merrifield Post Office and a nearby Reston shopping mall in conflict with each other.
However, Keith Olbermann used every opportunity – on national cable television – to compare the tea parties to a sexual act most Americans would consider perversion. “Teabagging” is street jargon that is impossible to explain on these pages with the remotest level of decency. The term originated within the homosexual community.
In fact, no one in the tea party movement has ever used the terms “teabagging” or “teabaggers.” Indeed, most of the modern tea parties have not involved any actual tea at all, and have not focused on either tea or tea bags. (The tea in the Boston Tea Party in 1773 was in crates.) The one defect of the modern tea parties is their distinct lack of any tea. (The EPA might object if tea were thrown into lakes or rivers these days.) Therefore, not only has the term never been used by the tea parties, but tea bags play little or no role in these re-enactment of a pivotal event in American history.
Olbermann admitted that his many double entrendres were intentional. Olbermann laughed “That’s the only thing that wasn’t intentional in the last five minutes,” after his British guest expressed discomfort at being an Englishmen asked about tea parties. Later, Olbermman then again explicitly mentioned double entrendres about tea parties, such as “Dick Armey teabagging the nation" and asked if Howard Stern had invented the protests.
His segment was aired over the titles: “GOP bones up on teabagging" and “Teabaggers’ seminal moment." Olbermann claimed that Republican talking heads like Newt Gingrich have pushed their own version of teabagging “down the throats of the original teabaggers.” He claimed that “Cincinnati teabaggers were down in the mouth about taxes.” He predicted that the teabagger movement would blow up in Fox’s face. According to Rush Limbaugh, CNN’s Cooper Anderson made a similar comment that “It is hard to speak while you’re teabagging.”
Olbermann managed to get almost every fact wrong in his report, showing incompetence as a journalist. Olbermann claimed that the tea parties were started by libertarian supporters of Ron Paul. In fact, the initial promoters of tea parties, following Rick Santelli’s on-air rant, were Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, American Solutions, and Americans for Prosperity.
The “Countdown” report falsely portrayed the movement as manufactured by corporate interests and the Republican National Committee. Most of Olbermann’s interview with British MSNBC analyst Richard Wolffe focused on fantasizing about what might happen if the tea parties were a flop because people don’t show up.
He falsely portrayed the tea party movement as involving Republican officials such as John Boehner and Dick Armey. In fact, some tea parties have banned elected officials from participating. While it is true that many elected officials and political leader have tried to “run out in front of the parade” and become part of the action, a hallmark of the tea party movement has been disgust with every level of government regardless of party. Complaints include the fact that both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of both massive over-spending borrowing money from our children and ignoring the voice of the people. Some are even discussing the creation of an independent political party based on the tea party rallies. Much will depend now on what happens on July 4, Independence Day, and whether the protest movement can again marshall a strong voice on July 4th.
Readers should be warned that it is impossible to report Keith Olbermann’s grossly offensive reporting without discussing his offensive content. On April 15, Rush Limbaugh broadcast a similar discussion of the same smear made on-air by CNN’S Anderson Coooper without giving such a warning (which he normally gives), and Rush read from an urban dictionary to make his point.
Invoking the historical example of the “Boston Tea Party” which helped spark the American Revolution, a tsunami of spontaneous grassroots protest has swept across the nation. Americans of many different political views are protesting against government’s over-spending, bailouts, and refusal to listen to the people on such issues as illegal immigration.
The first modern “Boston Tea Party” was a spontaneous event in Seattle, Washington, on February 16, 2009. Then on February 19, financial reporter Rick Santelli gave his famous “rant heard round the world” on CNBC in which Santelli suggested holding a Chicago Tea Party in July and throwing tea into Lake Michigan. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA] To some extent, the enormous public opposition to the massive bank and corporate bailouts starting last Fall has evolved into the tea party movement.
Public sentiment against both George Bush’s and Barack Obama’s bailouts of mind-numbing size, using borrowed money, have swamped the Congressional switchboard at several points since last Fall. One of the most poignant scenes of the tea parties is a very young girl holding up a sign “Sorry, Daddy, I don’t have a trillion dollars to loan you.”
The idea of holding tea parties on tax day, April 15, emerged as too obvious to ignore. Following this example, hundreds of conservative organizations and tens of thousands of individuals seized on this very obvious opportunity to protest. With the internet and talk radio making the organization inexpensive and easy, hundreds of rallies were scheduled. Some of the tea parties are so spontaneous that conflicting rallies have been scheduled at the same time without coordination. Tea parties in Fairfax, Virginia, were scheduled for both the Merrifield Post Office and a nearby Reston shopping mall in conflict with each other.
However, Keith Olbermann used every opportunity – on national cable television – to compare the tea parties to a sexual act most Americans would consider perversion. “Teabagging” is street jargon that is impossible to explain on these pages with the remotest level of decency. The term originated within the homosexual community.
In fact, no one in the tea party movement has ever used the terms “teabagging” or “teabaggers.” Indeed, most of the modern tea parties have not involved any actual tea at all, and have not focused on either tea or tea bags. (The tea in the Boston Tea Party in 1773 was in crates.) The one defect of the modern tea parties is their distinct lack of any tea. (The EPA might object if tea were thrown into lakes or rivers these days.) Therefore, not only has the term never been used by the tea parties, but tea bags play little or no role in these re-enactment of a pivotal event in American history.
Olbermann admitted that his many double entrendres were intentional. Olbermann laughed “That’s the only thing that wasn’t intentional in the last five minutes,” after his British guest expressed discomfort at being an Englishmen asked about tea parties. Later, Olbermman then again explicitly mentioned double entrendres about tea parties, such as “Dick Armey teabagging the nation" and asked if Howard Stern had invented the protests.
His segment was aired over the titles: “GOP bones up on teabagging" and “Teabaggers’ seminal moment." Olbermann claimed that Republican talking heads like Newt Gingrich have pushed their own version of teabagging “down the throats of the original teabaggers.” He claimed that “Cincinnati teabaggers were down in the mouth about taxes.” He predicted that the teabagger movement would blow up in Fox’s face. According to Rush Limbaugh, CNN’s Cooper Anderson made a similar comment that “It is hard to speak while you’re teabagging.”
Olbermann managed to get almost every fact wrong in his report, showing incompetence as a journalist. Olbermann claimed that the tea parties were started by libertarian supporters of Ron Paul. In fact, the initial promoters of tea parties, following Rick Santelli’s on-air rant, were Citizens Against Government Waste, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, American Solutions, and Americans for Prosperity.
The “Countdown” report falsely portrayed the movement as manufactured by corporate interests and the Republican National Committee. Most of Olbermann’s interview with British MSNBC analyst Richard Wolffe focused on fantasizing about what might happen if the tea parties were a flop because people don’t show up.
He falsely portrayed the tea party movement as involving Republican officials such as John Boehner and Dick Armey. In fact, some tea parties have banned elected officials from participating. While it is true that many elected officials and political leader have tried to “run out in front of the parade” and become part of the action, a hallmark of the tea party movement has been disgust with every level of government regardless of party. Complaints include the fact that both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of both massive over-spending borrowing money from our children and ignoring the voice of the people. Some are even discussing the creation of an independent political party based on the tea party rallies. Much will depend now on what happens on July 4, Independence Day, and whether the protest movement can again marshall a strong voice on July 4th.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Obama Apologies, While World Picks His Pockets
President Obama's diplomatic tour through Europe, Turkey, and Iraq is being loudly trumpeted as a great success by the mainstream media. However, Obama's "success" came mainly from embarrassing America and surrendering American interests, to the great delight of America's opponents. Concessions to other countries and signs of American weakness were well-received by other countries, yet not rewarded.
In what conservatives are calling his "Apologizing for America Tour," Obama took an astonishing 500 White House staffers and security personnel on a European tour. Obama traveled to London to attend the "G-20" summit of the 20 largest economies, seeking to develop a global, coordinated response to the economic crisis. Expanded from the previous G-7 series of summits, the G-20 summit was the largest meeting of heads of state since World War II.
The G-20 produced agreement on massive government spending, but also vast, new regulations. A new international board will have authority to intervene in U.S. corporations, including approving or disapproving business management decisions and executive salaries. There were vague promises for reform of the International Monetary Fund. However, the G-20 floated plans to turn the IMF into a one-world government "national" bank similar to the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States. The IMF has agreed to sell gold to finance stimulus loans. Some actions could led to a global currency.
Obama announced to the world's leaders in Strasbourg that the United States has been arrogant. Obama confessed that America has had a "failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world" and a failure to "celebrate" the European Union and partner with the EU. Obama refused to visit the graves of U.S. soldiers who liberated Europe in World War II, to avoid upsetting the Germans. By contrast, no other world leader apologized for his or her country.
In fact, Europe's refusal to take on any leadership role has dominated world affairs. America's attempts to work together with Europe have been met with frustration. The USA has had to shoulder the burden of crises inside and near Europe chronically ignored by European leaders, such as Yugoslavia, Liberia, Sierre Leone, the Sudan, Darfur, and Afghanistan. During the Cold War, the U.S.A. spent trillions of dollars extending its military umbrella over Europe, allowing Europe to freeload and develop their civilian economies at America's expense.
In Turkey, Obama declared that the United States is not a Christian nation and does not consider itself a Christian nation. Obama declared that the US is not at war with Islam. Obama again apologized to Turkey for America's attitude.
During the Coalition invasion of Iraq, Turkey agreed to allow US troops to unload in Turkish ports and cross into Iraq. Then Turkey changed its mind in the middle of the operation, throwing U.S. war plans into chaos. Half of America's invasion force had to climb back onto ships, steam the long way around to Kuwait, and get in line behind other troops entering from the South. Weapons depots in the North were left unprotected, and fell into the hands of terrorists and insurgents. The North was not secured as planned. As a direct result of Turkey's betrayal, the war lasted years longer than it should have and thousands of US soldiers died. The original plan would have kept massive ammunition dumps out of the hands of the Jihadists and would have quickly controlled the North.
At the G-20, Obama bowed reverently to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JGK-xbXxMw&feature=related]. This reinforced suspicions of Obama critics that he retains his religious training as a Muslim from his youth. By contrast, Obama did not bow to Queen Elizabeth of England, other than to simply look down from his greater height. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLuLEfVNow&feature=related]
Diplomatically, the summit placed the heads of state on an equal footing. Therefore, President Obama's sign of subservience and allegiance to the king of Saudi Arabia was both shocking and diplomatically wrong. Saudi's king was obliged to treat the President of the United States with the same respect as Obama gave. Of course, Saudi Arabia is the guardian of the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina, making King Abdullah very important and revered among Muslims. Meanwhile, most of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 in 2001 were Saudis. Saudi Arabia has pretended to be America's friend, but Al Qaeda and anti-American terrorists are primarily funded by Saudi oil princes.
As a student in Indonesia, Obama was enrolled by his then-father Lolo Sotero in religious training as a Muslim, according to school transcripts. Doubts have persisted whether Obama has entirely left behind his Muslim roots. Since Muslims honor Jesus as a prophet -- just not as a Savior or as God in human form -- Obama's attendance at Rev. Wright's church is compatible with a continuing Islamic faith. Wright's Chicago church focused mainly on politics, and rarely if ever preach Jesus as being God or the Savior. (During the election, Obama claimed he had campaigned in 57 of the 58 States. There are 57 States in the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Obama seemed more familiar with the world's Islamic States than the United States.)
At the G-20, Obama's overtures were not rewarded. Europe refused to share the responsibility of rebuilding and securing Afghanistan. (Europe's shocking neglect of Afghanistan's crisis in the 1990's led to its domination by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.)
North Korea delivered Obama a slap in the face by launching a test missile across Japanese territory toward Alaska. Though claimed to be a satellite launch, the rocket was plainly a prototype for an intercontinental missile capable of dropping a nuclear bomb on the United States. North Korea has already developed and tested nuclear weapons. Obama's apologies for America and diplomatic efforts were met with embarrasment.
Russia immediately sabotaged Obama, rather than rewarding Obama's olive branch, by announcing that Iran poses no threat to the United States. This diplomatic bomb seriously prejudices upcoming talks, as Obama prepares to meet with Iran's President Ahmadinejad to negotiate. Russia has already declared that the U.S. has no legitimate interest to pursue in the talks. Thus, Obama's outreach to the world has been a dismal failure. Rather than earning respect, world powers have seized on his weakness to sabotage U.S. goals.
Muslim pirates from Somalia hijacked a U.S.-run ship for the first time, indicating that appeasement and apologies do not incresae respect for U.S. interests. The Arab League announced solidarity with the Sudanese government engaging in genocide in Darfur and the Sudan.
Since the world's nations mostly want to take advantage at the USA's expense, if they are completely happy, something is wrong. Major nations have their own goals, aims, pressures, and desires. There will inevitably be tensions and clashes of interests. Therefore, if other nations are thrilled with the American President, he is failing to stand up for America's interests. Even married couples and friends must compromise on what movie to see or what restaurant to eat at tonight. Obama came across as the friend who never has any opinion of his own, and does whatever he is told.
If giving away the store, or preparing to, is success, then Obama very effectively displayed America's weakness and lack of resolve and invited other countries to trample on American interests.
America's enemies and "frenemies" (enemies who pretend to be friends) applauded Obama's performance. One would expect when America's President is emptying out his pockets, bowing down, and giving away America's glbal interests, the world will be pleased.
In what conservatives are calling his "Apologizing for America Tour," Obama took an astonishing 500 White House staffers and security personnel on a European tour. Obama traveled to London to attend the "G-20" summit of the 20 largest economies, seeking to develop a global, coordinated response to the economic crisis. Expanded from the previous G-7 series of summits, the G-20 summit was the largest meeting of heads of state since World War II.
The G-20 produced agreement on massive government spending, but also vast, new regulations. A new international board will have authority to intervene in U.S. corporations, including approving or disapproving business management decisions and executive salaries. There were vague promises for reform of the International Monetary Fund. However, the G-20 floated plans to turn the IMF into a one-world government "national" bank similar to the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States. The IMF has agreed to sell gold to finance stimulus loans. Some actions could led to a global currency.
Obama announced to the world's leaders in Strasbourg that the United States has been arrogant. Obama confessed that America has had a "failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world" and a failure to "celebrate" the European Union and partner with the EU. Obama refused to visit the graves of U.S. soldiers who liberated Europe in World War II, to avoid upsetting the Germans. By contrast, no other world leader apologized for his or her country.
In fact, Europe's refusal to take on any leadership role has dominated world affairs. America's attempts to work together with Europe have been met with frustration. The USA has had to shoulder the burden of crises inside and near Europe chronically ignored by European leaders, such as Yugoslavia, Liberia, Sierre Leone, the Sudan, Darfur, and Afghanistan. During the Cold War, the U.S.A. spent trillions of dollars extending its military umbrella over Europe, allowing Europe to freeload and develop their civilian economies at America's expense.
In Turkey, Obama declared that the United States is not a Christian nation and does not consider itself a Christian nation. Obama declared that the US is not at war with Islam. Obama again apologized to Turkey for America's attitude.
During the Coalition invasion of Iraq, Turkey agreed to allow US troops to unload in Turkish ports and cross into Iraq. Then Turkey changed its mind in the middle of the operation, throwing U.S. war plans into chaos. Half of America's invasion force had to climb back onto ships, steam the long way around to Kuwait, and get in line behind other troops entering from the South. Weapons depots in the North were left unprotected, and fell into the hands of terrorists and insurgents. The North was not secured as planned. As a direct result of Turkey's betrayal, the war lasted years longer than it should have and thousands of US soldiers died. The original plan would have kept massive ammunition dumps out of the hands of the Jihadists and would have quickly controlled the North.
At the G-20, Obama bowed reverently to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JGK-xbXxMw&feature=related]. This reinforced suspicions of Obama critics that he retains his religious training as a Muslim from his youth. By contrast, Obama did not bow to Queen Elizabeth of England, other than to simply look down from his greater height. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYLuLEfVNow&feature=related]
Diplomatically, the summit placed the heads of state on an equal footing. Therefore, President Obama's sign of subservience and allegiance to the king of Saudi Arabia was both shocking and diplomatically wrong. Saudi's king was obliged to treat the President of the United States with the same respect as Obama gave. Of course, Saudi Arabia is the guardian of the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina, making King Abdullah very important and revered among Muslims. Meanwhile, most of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 in 2001 were Saudis. Saudi Arabia has pretended to be America's friend, but Al Qaeda and anti-American terrorists are primarily funded by Saudi oil princes.
As a student in Indonesia, Obama was enrolled by his then-father Lolo Sotero in religious training as a Muslim, according to school transcripts. Doubts have persisted whether Obama has entirely left behind his Muslim roots. Since Muslims honor Jesus as a prophet -- just not as a Savior or as God in human form -- Obama's attendance at Rev. Wright's church is compatible with a continuing Islamic faith. Wright's Chicago church focused mainly on politics, and rarely if ever preach Jesus as being God or the Savior. (During the election, Obama claimed he had campaigned in 57 of the 58 States. There are 57 States in the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Obama seemed more familiar with the world's Islamic States than the United States.)
At the G-20, Obama's overtures were not rewarded. Europe refused to share the responsibility of rebuilding and securing Afghanistan. (Europe's shocking neglect of Afghanistan's crisis in the 1990's led to its domination by Al Qaeda and the Taliban.)
North Korea delivered Obama a slap in the face by launching a test missile across Japanese territory toward Alaska. Though claimed to be a satellite launch, the rocket was plainly a prototype for an intercontinental missile capable of dropping a nuclear bomb on the United States. North Korea has already developed and tested nuclear weapons. Obama's apologies for America and diplomatic efforts were met with embarrasment.
Russia immediately sabotaged Obama, rather than rewarding Obama's olive branch, by announcing that Iran poses no threat to the United States. This diplomatic bomb seriously prejudices upcoming talks, as Obama prepares to meet with Iran's President Ahmadinejad to negotiate. Russia has already declared that the U.S. has no legitimate interest to pursue in the talks. Thus, Obama's outreach to the world has been a dismal failure. Rather than earning respect, world powers have seized on his weakness to sabotage U.S. goals.
Muslim pirates from Somalia hijacked a U.S.-run ship for the first time, indicating that appeasement and apologies do not incresae respect for U.S. interests. The Arab League announced solidarity with the Sudanese government engaging in genocide in Darfur and the Sudan.
Since the world's nations mostly want to take advantage at the USA's expense, if they are completely happy, something is wrong. Major nations have their own goals, aims, pressures, and desires. There will inevitably be tensions and clashes of interests. Therefore, if other nations are thrilled with the American President, he is failing to stand up for America's interests. Even married couples and friends must compromise on what movie to see or what restaurant to eat at tonight. Obama came across as the friend who never has any opinion of his own, and does whatever he is told.
If giving away the store, or preparing to, is success, then Obama very effectively displayed America's weakness and lack of resolve and invited other countries to trample on American interests.
America's enemies and "frenemies" (enemies who pretend to be friends) applauded Obama's performance. One would expect when America's President is emptying out his pockets, bowing down, and giving away America's glbal interests, the world will be pleased.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
"TEA PARTY" Protestors Couldn't Wait For Tax Day
Taxpayers couldn't wait to protest for April 15 to arrive here in Wilmington, North Carolina. Catching the growing "tax day" revolt, approximately 700 angry citizens rallied at the Federal Building in Wilmington on April 7. Across the nation, almost 2,000 modern "Boston Tea Parties" are now expected on April 15. The intensity and number of events suggests a massive groundswell continuing to build. Leaders are urging Americans to "Party like it's 1776," to take back America.
The favorite chant of the crowd on the steps of Wilmington's Federal building was "Throw the bums out," along with "Who do you work for? WE THE PEOPLE!" The crowd was filled with yellow Colonial flags -- large and small -- proclaiming "Don't Tread on Me" along with many American flags. A gentleman dressed as a Colonial officer of the Revolutionary War waved an enormous Red, White, and Blue flag.
Hundreds of home-made signs attacked out-of-control spending, socialism, taxes, bail-outs and Obama policies. One sign simply said "NYET !" over the hammer-and-sickle sign of the Soviet Union (Russian for "No"). Many signs are becoming standard tea party items, such as one saying "Obama Motors" crossed through and another spelling out "OBAMA" as an acronym for "One Big A** Mistake America." Others decried the burden of debt imposed on children and grandchildren. Another proclaimed "If you like socialism, move to Europe."
However, a major theme of the protest here in Wilmington and nationwide is the arrogance of elected officials who simply don't listen to the voters. More than any particular issue, the crowd was infuriated by the general attitude of Washington and local politicians in seizing people's rights and money without caring what the voters want. This anger is directed at all levels of government: Federal, State, and local.
In Wilmington, the crowd marched from the Federal building to the City Council building, where they accidentally caught the Mayor, Bill Saffo, walking out the front entrance. The surprised Mayor, looking like a deer caught in headlights, was forced to cheerfully acknowledge the angry, yelling voters before racing back inside. Then their chants on the front steps could be clearly heard by the City Council meeting going on inside. The crowd broke out singing "God Bless America," after being informed that the City Council could hear them. Chants of "Throw the bums out" then resumed.
Dozens of organizations are calling for a national day of protest on April 15 -- the deadline for filing Federal tax returns. The protests invoke the memory of the famous tax protest of the Massachussetts Colony against the British as a key moment in American history. In 1773, Colonists fed up with the many taxes imposed by the English King, threw British tea into Boston harbor, rather than pay the tax on the tea. (The protestors disguised their identities by dressing as Indians, but announced that they were in fact Masschusetts Colonialists.)
Today, the massive tea party movement is being "organized" by almost every conservative or libertarian political group imaginable, of every kind. There are so many unrelated organizations involved that essentially no one is actually organizing this movement. The idea materalized after a now-famous, impromptu "rant" by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k] on February 19, when he called for a Chicago Tea Party throwing tea into Lake Michigan.
At first, a coalition led by Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union staged tea parties in February. They were tracking plans for 170 more on April 15. Then Don Wildmon's American Family Association upped the ante by promising to organize 1,000 more. Soon afterward, almost every organization that exists jumped on board the movement. Organizations that normally never talk to each other, or don't even know the other exists, were suddenly working together to set up tax-day tea parties. Now, tracking of events suggests the total will approach 2,000 events on April 15.
The Wilmington event was sponsored by half-a-dozen groups, including Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Fair Taxation (Fairtax.org). However, local talk show host Curtis Wright turned out many listeners not connected with any organization. Such spontaneous involvement by citizens is often hoped for, but rarely achieved. This time, the movement appears to be a chain reaction exploding nation-wide. Even beyond April 15, tea parties are already being discussed for tea party rallies on July 4 -- Independence Day.
The favorite chant of the crowd on the steps of Wilmington's Federal building was "Throw the bums out," along with "Who do you work for? WE THE PEOPLE!" The crowd was filled with yellow Colonial flags -- large and small -- proclaiming "Don't Tread on Me" along with many American flags. A gentleman dressed as a Colonial officer of the Revolutionary War waved an enormous Red, White, and Blue flag.
Hundreds of home-made signs attacked out-of-control spending, socialism, taxes, bail-outs and Obama policies. One sign simply said "NYET !" over the hammer-and-sickle sign of the Soviet Union (Russian for "No"). Many signs are becoming standard tea party items, such as one saying "Obama Motors" crossed through and another spelling out "OBAMA" as an acronym for "One Big A** Mistake America." Others decried the burden of debt imposed on children and grandchildren. Another proclaimed "If you like socialism, move to Europe."
However, a major theme of the protest here in Wilmington and nationwide is the arrogance of elected officials who simply don't listen to the voters. More than any particular issue, the crowd was infuriated by the general attitude of Washington and local politicians in seizing people's rights and money without caring what the voters want. This anger is directed at all levels of government: Federal, State, and local.
In Wilmington, the crowd marched from the Federal building to the City Council building, where they accidentally caught the Mayor, Bill Saffo, walking out the front entrance. The surprised Mayor, looking like a deer caught in headlights, was forced to cheerfully acknowledge the angry, yelling voters before racing back inside. Then their chants on the front steps could be clearly heard by the City Council meeting going on inside. The crowd broke out singing "God Bless America," after being informed that the City Council could hear them. Chants of "Throw the bums out" then resumed.
Dozens of organizations are calling for a national day of protest on April 15 -- the deadline for filing Federal tax returns. The protests invoke the memory of the famous tax protest of the Massachussetts Colony against the British as a key moment in American history. In 1773, Colonists fed up with the many taxes imposed by the English King, threw British tea into Boston harbor, rather than pay the tax on the tea. (The protestors disguised their identities by dressing as Indians, but announced that they were in fact Masschusetts Colonialists.)
Today, the massive tea party movement is being "organized" by almost every conservative or libertarian political group imaginable, of every kind. There are so many unrelated organizations involved that essentially no one is actually organizing this movement. The idea materalized after a now-famous, impromptu "rant" by CNBC reporter Rick Santelli [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k] on February 19, when he called for a Chicago Tea Party throwing tea into Lake Michigan.
At first, a coalition led by Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union staged tea parties in February. They were tracking plans for 170 more on April 15. Then Don Wildmon's American Family Association upped the ante by promising to organize 1,000 more. Soon afterward, almost every organization that exists jumped on board the movement. Organizations that normally never talk to each other, or don't even know the other exists, were suddenly working together to set up tax-day tea parties. Now, tracking of events suggests the total will approach 2,000 events on April 15.
The Wilmington event was sponsored by half-a-dozen groups, including Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Fair Taxation (Fairtax.org). However, local talk show host Curtis Wright turned out many listeners not connected with any organization. Such spontaneous involvement by citizens is often hoped for, but rarely achieved. This time, the movement appears to be a chain reaction exploding nation-wide. Even beyond April 15, tea parties are already being discussed for tea party rallies on July 4 -- Independence Day.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Survey Reveals Republicans Expect Obama Plans To Fail
Echoing criticism by conservative leaders like Rush Limbaugh, most Republicans expect Barack Obama's policies to fail at fixing the economy. A new survey finds that Republicans and Democrats have dramatically different expectations about America's economic future. Among Democrats, 57.44% answer that they are "optimistic about the economy" while only 25.36% of Republicans express that same optimism.
It appears that Democrats trust their choice for President to fix the economy, yet Republicans do not expect Obama to succeed. The optimism of Democrats, however, also suggests they agree with Obama's assumptions that government spending of borrowed money will somehow stimulate the economy.
Meanwhile, favorable opinions of President Barack Obama dropped 20% from January 21 to March 9. Since inauguration day, Obama's favorable rating fell to 55.8%. Only 37.43% of Americans support "the trillion-dollar bailout" which "President Obama signed into law."
The fact that Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to expect economic recovery indicates faith that President Obama's plans will succeed. Many Republicans doubt that Obama's programs will help the economy.
Among Barack Obama's supporters, 63.88% support Obama's trillion dollar bailout. Only 5.65% of Obama opponents support the bailout. (The survey attempted to distinguish Obama's own program from President Bush's earlier bailout last Fall.) However, concerns about losing their job are equal regardless of political beliefs.
Among those with a favorable opinion of President Obama, 54.53% were "optimistic about the economy" compared with only 18.07% of those unfavorable to Obama. However, those worried about America's economy would probably be less satisfied with the President in any event. An unfavorable opinion of Obama may simply reflect economic worry. Yet the clear difference between Democrats and Republicans shows that supporters of the President believe his strategy for the economy will succeed.
On other topics, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" was a loser across the board, with only 34.34% of Obama supporters and 15.41% of Obama opponents agreeing. The "Fairness Doctrine" would require balanced content in radio and TV broadcasts, which conservatives say would indirectly destroy conservative talk radio by requiring content listeners don't want, already available in the mainstream media.
Furthermore, 80.22% of those with an unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama support US efforts in Iraq, compared with 38.06% among Obama supporters. Among Obama opponents, 92.5% identified themselves as "anti-tax" while 78.5% of Obama supporters agreed. Traditional marriage won the support of 88.51% of Obama opponents and 50.50% of even Obama supporters.
Males and females showed no differences in their expections, once party affiliation was set aside. The survey of 50,000 households across the U.S. mainland was conducted on March 9, 2009, by ccAdvertising based in Herndon, Virginia, and released March 20, 2009. The households were randomly selected from a database of 120 million records balanced by regional population density, with a 70% completion rate.
It appears that Democrats trust their choice for President to fix the economy, yet Republicans do not expect Obama to succeed. The optimism of Democrats, however, also suggests they agree with Obama's assumptions that government spending of borrowed money will somehow stimulate the economy.
Meanwhile, favorable opinions of President Barack Obama dropped 20% from January 21 to March 9. Since inauguration day, Obama's favorable rating fell to 55.8%. Only 37.43% of Americans support "the trillion-dollar bailout" which "President Obama signed into law."
The fact that Democrats are twice as likely as Republicans to expect economic recovery indicates faith that President Obama's plans will succeed. Many Republicans doubt that Obama's programs will help the economy.
Among Barack Obama's supporters, 63.88% support Obama's trillion dollar bailout. Only 5.65% of Obama opponents support the bailout. (The survey attempted to distinguish Obama's own program from President Bush's earlier bailout last Fall.) However, concerns about losing their job are equal regardless of political beliefs.
Among those with a favorable opinion of President Obama, 54.53% were "optimistic about the economy" compared with only 18.07% of those unfavorable to Obama. However, those worried about America's economy would probably be less satisfied with the President in any event. An unfavorable opinion of Obama may simply reflect economic worry. Yet the clear difference between Democrats and Republicans shows that supporters of the President believe his strategy for the economy will succeed.
On other topics, the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" was a loser across the board, with only 34.34% of Obama supporters and 15.41% of Obama opponents agreeing. The "Fairness Doctrine" would require balanced content in radio and TV broadcasts, which conservatives say would indirectly destroy conservative talk radio by requiring content listeners don't want, already available in the mainstream media.
Furthermore, 80.22% of those with an unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama support US efforts in Iraq, compared with 38.06% among Obama supporters. Among Obama opponents, 92.5% identified themselves as "anti-tax" while 78.5% of Obama supporters agreed. Traditional marriage won the support of 88.51% of Obama opponents and 50.50% of even Obama supporters.
Males and females showed no differences in their expections, once party affiliation was set aside. The survey of 50,000 households across the U.S. mainland was conducted on March 9, 2009, by ccAdvertising based in Herndon, Virginia, and released March 20, 2009. The households were randomly selected from a database of 120 million records balanced by regional population density, with a 70% completion rate.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Success In Creating Synthetic Gasoline Claimed By CWT
A pilot plant in Pennyslvania claims to be now successfully converting various wastes and trash into gasoline and diesel equivalents. Changing World Technologies[http://www.changingworldtech.com/] says that its pilot plant near Philadelphia is now creating fuel that can power any ordinary diesel or gasoline engine.
Brian Appel's company CWT uses a process called thermal depolymerization to turn almost any kind of organic waste, tires, etc. into gasoline and diesel fuel. Reducing imports of foreign oil from nations hostile to U.S. interests could strengthen America's national security and reduce the drain on the American economy from sending U.S. funds overseas.
Such technology dates back to World War II, when the German war machine was short on oil. German scientists began to experiment with techniques for creating synethetic gasoline (syngas) and oil. This German research included coal gassification. However, practical success has always eluded researchers. Contrary to populist calls for research into alternative fuels and alternative energy sources, America's government and private industry have already invested many tens of billions of dollars into alternative energy.
Despite frequent announcements for decades about promising results and breakthroughs, practical applications have always remained out of reach. Estimates of commercial availability always remain at about the same timeframe in the future.
Yet CWT claims to have now succeeded in the private sector where government pronouncements have not. The CWT process[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWf9nYbm3ac] uses a great deal of water, then pressure cooks the waste, and removes the water after the process is complete. Combustible vapors left over from the process provide fuel to power the entire plant.
CWT sees great potential for producing fuel in this way. America discards 10 billion tons each year. The nation's dump trucks require 323 million trips to carry all that trash.
As a result, CWT has just built a $20 million plant in Carthage, Missouri to convert 200 tons of waste from a turkey processing plant each day into fuel oil.
Brian Appel's company CWT uses a process called thermal depolymerization to turn almost any kind of organic waste, tires, etc. into gasoline and diesel fuel. Reducing imports of foreign oil from nations hostile to U.S. interests could strengthen America's national security and reduce the drain on the American economy from sending U.S. funds overseas.
Such technology dates back to World War II, when the German war machine was short on oil. German scientists began to experiment with techniques for creating synethetic gasoline (syngas) and oil. This German research included coal gassification. However, practical success has always eluded researchers. Contrary to populist calls for research into alternative fuels and alternative energy sources, America's government and private industry have already invested many tens of billions of dollars into alternative energy.
Despite frequent announcements for decades about promising results and breakthroughs, practical applications have always remained out of reach. Estimates of commercial availability always remain at about the same timeframe in the future.
Yet CWT claims to have now succeeded in the private sector where government pronouncements have not. The CWT process[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWf9nYbm3ac] uses a great deal of water, then pressure cooks the waste, and removes the water after the process is complete. Combustible vapors left over from the process provide fuel to power the entire plant.
CWT sees great potential for producing fuel in this way. America discards 10 billion tons each year. The nation's dump trucks require 323 million trips to carry all that trash.
As a result, CWT has just built a $20 million plant in Carthage, Missouri to convert 200 tons of waste from a turkey processing plant each day into fuel oil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
